ramarren Posted December 18, 2015 Share #61 Posted December 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) zlatkob:"... difficulty using an EVF in bright sunlight, or when it affects my night vision in a very dark setting ..." is definitely not the same as Sean Reid: "... Faced with a bright and sunny subject (or a lit stage near an audience in dim light, etc.) an EVF’s shadow areas go to black or the highlights go to white or both" ... Your complaint was about EVF usability, his complaint was about EVF dynamic range. Two different things. I feel his opinion is wrong: I've been using EVF cameras since 2008 and while they can't have the same dynamic range as light passing through an optical finder, they have more than enough for focusing, framing, and "seeing the subject." Your complaint about difficulty using an EVF in bright sunlight or affecting your night vision is about EVF brightness dynamics. EVFs would often not get bright enough to be usefully visible in sunlight situations, and couldn't get dim enough to be comfortable to use in dark situation. This problem has been mostly solved with the latest generation of EVFs, although it still takes a little bit of accommodation. For the record, I can barely see what's in an SLR viewfinder in the extremes of lighting like that either, and even an M's tunnel optical viewfinder can get dicey now and then due to flare. All cameras have some compromises in their design and implementation. Pick the ones you can live with and enjoy using. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Hi ramarren, Take a look here Should Leica Replace the M with the SL?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rfunnell Posted December 18, 2015 Share #62 Posted December 18, 2015 Having recently changed from M to SL I must say I am enjoying the experience the results out of the camera are outstanding. I'm still looking forward to seeing the new M however ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 19, 2015 Share #63 Posted December 19, 2015 [...] Shadow areas that go black on an EVF and wouldn't go black in an optical viewfinder. Or highlights that go white in an EVF and wouldn't go white in an optical viewfinder. The problem isn't that you can't predict exposure but that you can't even see parts of your subject in the EVF, possibly important parts. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. [...] It is indeed a drawback of all EVFs i've used so far but the later ones (Fuji X-E2, Sony A7s) are less prone to those effects. I have no experience with the SL 601 though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted December 19, 2015 Share #64 Posted December 19, 2015 I would be in line for a new type of Leica camera, using the M lens mount : - with the rangefinder and finder replaced by the EVF of the SL, or better, at the same place where the M finder is located. - with a slimmer body a la M6, thanks to an M lens mount sticking out (a bit like the M-T adapter sticks out on the SL). - with the magnification activated by the lens cam if wanted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 19, 2015 Share #65 Posted December 19, 2015 I would prefer the same with a rangefinder and a modern clip-on EVF. Best of both worlds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 19, 2015 Share #66 Posted December 19, 2015 I would be in line for a new type of Leica camera, using the M lens mount : - with the rangefinder and finder replaced by the EVF of the SL, or better, at the same place where the M finder is located. - with a slimmer body a la M6, thanks to an M lens mount sticking out (a bit like the M-T adapter sticks out on the SL). - with the magnification activated by the lens cam if wanted. Why not just get one of the excellent Sonys, or possibly some future Fuji? A camera like that would just be me-too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 19, 2015 Share #67 Posted December 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why not just get one of the excellent Sonys, or possibly some future Fuji? A camera like that would just be me-too. The lens cam of M lenses cannot activate focus magnification on those bodies. A button or a wheel must be pressed near the thumb rest (Fuji) or near the shutter release and/or the thumb rest (Sony). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 19, 2015 Share #68 Posted December 19, 2015 Well, yes, but the OVF for which the lenses are designed does not offer magnification at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 19, 2015 Share #69 Posted December 19, 2015 M lenses are supposed to work with both Leica OVF and EVF and focus magnification is activated by the lens cams on the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 19, 2015 Share #70 Posted December 19, 2015 I know. I usually switch it off in menu, as I hate losing the view when I focus. I don't use the EVF for 28-135 anyway. The OVF is perfect or the purpose, no need for EVFs in that focal range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 19, 2015 Share #71 Posted December 19, 2015 Yep, 28-90 with RF is superb for me already with the M240. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted December 19, 2015 Share #72 Posted December 19, 2015 zlatkob: "... difficulty using an EVF in bright sunlight, or when it affects my night vision in a very dark setting ..." is definitely not the same as Sean Reid: "... Faced with a bright and sunny subject (or a lit stage near an audience in dim light, etc.) an EVF’s shadow areas go to black or the highlights go to white or both" ... Your complaint was about EVF usability, his complaint was about EVF dynamic range. Two different things. I feel his opinion is wrong: I've been using EVF cameras since 2008 and while they can't have the same dynamic range as light passing through an optical finder, they have more than enough for focusing, framing, and "seeing the subject." Your complaint about difficulty using an EVF in bright sunlight or affecting your night vision is about EVF brightness dynamics. EVFs would often not get bright enough to be usefully visible in sunlight situations, and couldn't get dim enough to be comfortable to use in dark situation. This problem has been mostly solved with the latest generation of EVFs, although it still takes a little bit of accommodation. For the record, I can barely see what's in an SLR viewfinder in the extremes of lighting like that either, and even an M's tunnel optical viewfinder can get dicey now and then due to flare. All cameras have some compromises in their design and implementation. Pick the ones you can live with and enjoy using. Photographers generally acknowledge that EVFs have some limitations. And for some photographers those limitations are significant enough to avoid EVFs, or to disfavor them. Hence there will continue to be a point to making OVF cameras (answering the topic of the thread). Whether you call it "not the same dynamic range" or "limited usability" is nitpicking for purposes of this conversation. The problem Sean describes matches my experience (among other problems with EVFs), even if I didn't use his exact words to describe it. And you may "feel his opinion is wrong" but you can't deny his personal experience of his own shooting situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 19, 2015 Share #73 Posted December 19, 2015 Photographers generally acknowledge that EVFs have some limitations. And for some photographers those limitations are significant enough to avoid EVFs, or to disfavor them. Hence there will continue to be a point to making OVF cameras (answering the topic of the thread). Whether you call it "not the same dynamic range" or "limited usability" is nitpicking for purposes of this conversation. The problem Sean describes matches my experience (among other problems with EVFs), even if I didn't use his exact words to describe it. And you may "feel his opinion is wrong" but you can't deny his personal experience of his own shooting situations. All viewfinders have "some limitations", period. Reviewers are entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't make them correct or universal truths. The allegedly horrible dynamic range limitations of EVFs haven't put any obstacles in the way of my using cameras so equipped. That's why this silly opinion offered by Mr. Reid right up front is a red herring ... It's a diversion from objective evaluation of the camera, it's an opinion stated before reviewing the device in question. It doesn't matter to me that EVFs might have some limitations, or whether Mr Reid likes them or not, or whether you like them or not, or whether even I like them or not. What matters when reviewing a camera is whether the EVF works as advertised and whether its limitations constitute a practical hindrance to using the camera the way it was intended. In a review you should state what you observe first, and state your opinions second. That's what I dislike about the stupid piece on LuLa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 19, 2015 Share #74 Posted December 19, 2015 Photographers generally acknowledge that EVFs have some limitations. And for some photographers those limitations are significant enough to avoid EVFs, or to disfavor them. Hence there will continue to be a point to making OVF cameras (answering the topic of the thread). Whether you call it "not the same dynamic range" or "limited usability" is nitpicking for purposes of this conversation. The problem Sean describes matches my experience (among other problems with EVFs), even if I didn't use his exact words to describe it. And you may "feel his opinion is wrong" but you can't deny his personal experience of his own shooting situations. I am one of those photographers who cannot use an EVF. They actually give me a headache if I use them for even short periods of time. I can only tolerate them with AF lenses but ideally I would prefer an OVF whenever possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted December 19, 2015 Share #75 Posted December 19, 2015 All viewfinders have "some limitations", period. Reviewers are entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't make them correct or universal truths. The allegedly horrible dynamic range limitations of EVFs haven't put any obstacles in the way of my using cameras so equipped. That's why this silly opinion offered by Mr. Reid right up front is a red herring ... It's a diversion from objective evaluation of the camera, it's an opinion stated before reviewing the device in question. It doesn't matter to me that EVFs might have some limitations, or whether Mr Reid likes them or not, or whether you like them or not, or whether even I like them or not. What matters when reviewing a camera is whether the EVF works as advertised and whether its limitations constitute a practical hindrance to using the camera the way it was intended. In a review you should state what you observe first, and state your opinions second. That's what I dislike about the stupid piece on LuLa. While I agree with you about EVFs not being limiting (for me), I think a reviewer can legitimately state his (or her) opinion about a feature of a camera. It is then up to the reader to decide. I've not read Sean's review because I no longer subscribe (I will resubscribe when he makes his site readable), but in the past I have found his reviews thoughtful (perhaps to a fault) and based on fact. Similarly I don't always agree with the LuLa viewpoint but take from the reviews what I think relevant to the way I use a camera. In other words it is okay for a reviewer to say something like, "this is a very good DSLR but I personally think they're just too big and I wouldn't buy one." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 19, 2015 Share #76 Posted December 19, 2015 Not according to The Camera Store...: 2nd worse camera of the Year: expensive, huge and no lenses... Around 22.36... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 20, 2015 Share #77 Posted December 20, 2015 A blogger just posted an article on Mr. Huff's blog stating that he sold his M and replaced it with the SL and that the SL is really just a better M without a rangefinder. Does it make sense for Leica to consolidate down to just 3 or 4 models, say S, SL, Q and T? They could focus their resources and leverage off of the technology in each and optimize profits. Further, they could reduce the repair volume with no RF to recalibrate or lenses to be calibrated to a RF. Maybe this would improve turn around and hence customer service? Thoughts? No, they should not and it would be a stupid move if they did. I highly doubt they will. 2 different cameras and 2 different systems. Just because some bloggers write they prefer the SL over the M even when using M lenses on the SL doesnt mean this is true for most users. For my part I sea no advantage to use a 35 or 50mm M lens on the SL vs uses it on the M, but the other way around. I can see that people who like to use mainly A lenses or longer lenses on the SL would not need 2 different bodies and can also use M glass on the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumolux Posted December 20, 2015 Share #78 Posted December 20, 2015 I would prefer the same with a rangefinder and a modern clip-on EVF. Best of both worlds. Exactly..... If you are used to using external viewfinders anyway, then this is what I would call a development 'organic' to the M's rangefinder goodness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2015 Share #79 Posted December 20, 2015 The limitations on dynamic range in EVFs is a red herring. It sounds important but means little to the operation of a viewfinder, which is intended to be an instrument for focusing and framing, not exposure evaluation. Professional movie and television camera operators have been working with EVFs for many years and I don't see that it has impacted the quality of their cinematography one bit. I don't know about anyone else, but I use my eyes or exposure measuring tools (meter readings, histogram, etc) to evaluate whether I need to bias exposures one way or another. Hello Ramarren, I have to say that despite you pointing out quite correctly that camera operators in the cinematography field have for more than a decade or so now been using EVF's either on television cameras such as Betacams, ( TV cameras have pretty much always used EVF's, unbelievably horrible in the main), or digital cinema cameras like the Red, Arri Alexa and other offerings from Canon and Sony an EVF is not necessarily what an operator would prefer to use. Me for one included. It's just that now there's little or no other choice other than to use an EVF in the digital cinema field. There's the Arri Alexa Studio camera that uses a spinning mirror to allow the operator use of a "real" OVF, and the late lamented Aaton Penelope Delta that too had a fantastic OVF. Both finders were much much better than any EVF before or since, and many cinematographers preferred using them, but one big drawback to this type of camera is that when the camera was not running the mirror is in the default down position so that the operator can use the viewfinder however this blocks the sensor so there's no video feed to the director's, or any other, monitor. Only the camera operator can view the scene / shot, if the mirror is in the locked up position then the monitors come alive, but the camera operator goes "blind". For me there's no EVF that will give you what an OVF can, not even anywhere close in stills or movie camerawork. Unfortunately though that's where things are right now as the march towards everything EVF seems to me as prevalent now in still camera design as it's been in film/cinema cameras these past years. I hope that the OVF RF M survives, though in the long run I'd not put money on that happening, but then there's many film M's out there for Luddites like me to fall back on should that day come……. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted December 20, 2015 Share #80 Posted December 20, 2015 Not according to The Camera Store...: 2nd worse camera of the Year: expensive, huge and no lenses... Around 22.36... Considering quality you could argue that other manufacturer have even less. Further there is even no chance that they will deliver some respectable lenses in the future. It is all a matter of perspective. [emoji57] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.